turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Mary I of Scotland
Not Mary I--She was the only Mary to rule Scotland; Mary II was Queen of England, Scotland, and Ireland, as one entity, though not yet the United Kingdom. And she was styled Queen of Scots, not Queen of Scotland, because the Scots were of the old school, that the monarch was sovereign over the people, not the land. Turtle Fan 14:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC) By the way, TR, if you'd like to play with the "Born in Defunct Countries" categories, and especially if you'd like to get them out of southeastern Europe, RB should provide fruitful pickings. England and Scotland are both parts of the UK now. Turtle Fan 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) :True, but both have the vague status of being constitutient countries. So I'm not entirely certain if "defunct" is the right word. TR 11:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ::Vague indeed. ::Appropos of nothing, in most foreign languages that I know of there is one word used for both "England" and "Britain." Even in English (not British, note) we say things like "a joint Anglo-American military base" as though the crown union had either never happened or was an unequal meeting. I swear, you would never believe the Scottish dynasty absorbed the English crown and not the other way around. Turtle Fan 14:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC) :::Or that the Normans did, for that matter. TR 23:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC) ::::Come to think of it, speaking of "British" as opposed to "English" suggests the Celts held off the Anglo-Saxons. But more often the Anglo-Saxons rule the roost. Turtle Fan 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC) :::::Acutally, its more that the Britons held off the Celts without needing the Anglo-Saxons, instead of becoming the Welsh. TR 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) ::::::Of course, I apologize for the error. But at any rate, that island changing hands does seem to be kind to the person out of whose hands the change occurs. Turtle Fan 15:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC) :::::::Let's blame the Romans. They aren't around to defend themselves, so it's easy. TR 15:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC) ::::::::Yeah, the Romans would be an exception, wouldn't they. But then, the Britons were there before the Romans came, and were there after they left, so they win again. Turtle Fan 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC) ::::::::On a distantly related note, I once considered writing a story set in the contemporary UK in which Britain enters its "darkest hour," and at the point of maximum danger Arthur returns to set everything right. The English and Scots declare that their worries are over, but then Arthur goes out to Wales and helps the descendants of the original Britons get back on top. I gave it up because I couldn't come up with a "darkest hour" premise that was either interesting or plausible, but I did enjoy the chance to poke fun at the fact that celebration of Arthur's heroism keeps getting commandeered by the very people who should fear it. Even the French got in on the action while the Hundred Years' War was raging. In fact I think they even invented Lancelot. ::::::::Adding further to the irony, the oldest written Arthurian stories were in the lives of early British saints, and were written by the people from whose stock Arthur would have sprung. These references suggest he was not loved, at least not by the Christians of his tribe. I suppose that's why so many contemporary Arthurian stories revolve around sectarian conflict. Turtle Fan 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Queen of France "Franciscus et Maria, Dei Gratia Franciae, Scotiae, Angliae et Hiberniae Rex et Regina." Obviously their claims to the English and Irish crowns were disputed; however, her styling as Queen of France was not. Not while Francois lived, and not after he died, either, nor even after she died: The French went into mourning on learning of her death, the same level of mourning afforded to any of their monarchs. Turtle Fan 17:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :Ok, I put her back into Monarchs, but I also left her in Consorts, which allows for the double-billing. TR 19:20, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Double billing's always cool. Turtle Fan 21:17, August 26, 2010 (UTC) You know, from time to time I like to toy with a timeline in which Francois was healthy and had a full, long reign and a son by Mary. Even if the English denied Mary's claim to the throne while Elizabeth lived, it would have been much, much harder to deny her son's claim after Elizabeth died--Note that in OTL the throne was indeed inherited by Mary's son. So a crown union between England and France would have become a distinct possibility. Ain't that a kick in the head. Turtle Fan 17:23, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :Indeed. And given that English monarchs were still claiming France, I wonder if anyone really would have made a stink about it. TR 19:20, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::During Elizabeth's time, Francophobia was at an unusually low pitch by the standards of English history (pre-Entente Cordial, anyway). In fact, France was Europe's number two power behind the Hapsburgs, so this strengthens the pattern Friedman has identified, which I mentioned the other day. Hatred of the Stuarts wouldn't've been there: If Mary had stayed in France, she would not have been exiled to England and would not have become swept up (however unwillingly) in all of those anti-Elizabethan plots. Maybe objections on religious grounds, depending on what sort of policy this hypothetical prince pursued against the Huguenots. ::And if the English Parliament did refuse to crown French James, what then? Find an even more distant cousin of the late Elizabeth? After the Stuarts and Lady Jane Grey, I'm afraid I quickly lose track of Henry VIII's sisters' lines, so I can't think of anyone else, but I'm sure that, if such a weak claim were to be considered, there would be multiple claimants pressing them. A return to the bad old days of the Wars of the Roses? Or maybe they'd ditch the monarchy altogether and accelerate the coming of the bad new days of the Protectorate. In either case you could throw in the possibility of French military intervention to install this new king by force, and since said king would also be either King of Scots or next in line to that throne, his forces would have a land border across which to launch an invasion--assuming the Scots nobility hadn't intrigued against our hypothetical king in his absence. Knox had some interest in political theories which excluded a hereditary monarch, you might actually have a Republic of Scotland by this point, though given the people who'd be setting it up I'm certain it would be neither democratic nor libertarian. Would probably look something like Calvin's Geneva, actually. ::And, if the French were about to install their king in England by force, might not the Spanish object? Prior to Elizabeth's intervention in the Netherlands, Philip II had preferred an independent Protestant England to a French-dominated Catholic one, surprisingly enough. Philip III would have been on the crown by this time, and he'd be less likely to make an issue of religion than his father would have been. Turtle Fan 21:17, August 26, 2010 (UTC)